DOOM: Console vs. PC

HeadRusch said:
So we're now arguing about a game with 2009-caliber graphics, that runs at 60fps and is designed around you being constantly kinetic.............and we're comparing screengrabs. Slow Day?
Click to expand...
I would suggest you go back and actually play a game from 2009, like FEAR 2: Project Origin, and compare the graphics.
Spoiler: they are night and day. ;)
 
Red Falcon said:
I would suggest you go back and actually play a game from 2009, like FEAR 2: Project Origin, and compare the graphics.
Spoiler: they are night and day. ;)
Click to expand...

A really big point lost in screenshots is how fast and consistently smooth this damn thing runs. Perhaps due in part to all the "restarts" this title had for gameplay, the engine has clearly been tuned to hell and back (haha).

I run with vsync on and it just rails at 120hz, smooth and consistent - ideal for a super fast reflex based game.

Other games I have, even ones which generally have high framerates, are not nearly as consistent and fluid. It's really pretty damn amazing.
 
Red Falcon said:
I would suggest you go back and actually play a game from 2009, like FEAR 2: Project Origin, and compare the graphics.
Spoiler: they are night and day. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh that's some crap. Why choose that game? There are plenty of games from 2009 that look better. Hell, Crysis is from 2007 and blows this away.
 
PC looks better but the consoles do alot with what they have. XB1 and ps4 are like a mustang GT and mid level pc are the Vipers and Corvettes. The new PS4k might be the Shelby 350r with a 5.2 Voodoo - challenging Corvette driver egos. Top end PCs will still be your Veyrons but that is a different price class altogether.
 
PhaseNoise said:
A really big point lost in screenshots is how fast and consistently smooth this damn thing runs. Perhaps due in part to all the "restarts" this title had for gameplay, the engine has clearly been tuned to hell and back (haha).

I run with vsync on and it just rails at 120hz, smooth and consistent - ideal for a super fast reflex based game.

Other games I have, even ones which generally have high framerates, are not nearly as consistent and fluid. It's really pretty damn amazing.
Click to expand...

I agree man, looking at screenshots can't do it justice. But on my X34 this game looks great with Gsync maxed out.
 
I've been puttering through it for the best part of this morning using the rig in my sig. With settings finagled properly to somewhere between mid and high, I've yet to see a drop below 60fps.

As for the screenshots, it's pretty easy to tell that the console versions are being rendered internally at a lower resolution, then being upscaled to 1080. Textures look pretty bad compared to the PC too.

Dig through the settings, and turn the internal render resolution to .75x or whatever 900p would be relative to your actual monitor resolution, then turn everything to medium. You're now comparing your framerate apples-to-apples to what consoles are doing.
 
Yada, yada, my PC the best. Thankfully, I am too busy actually playing games such as Rise of the Tomb Raider to be placing my nose 3 inches from my screen to try to notice the differences. Well, back to playing games, try not to enjoy them as you guys are already not doing.
 
ManofGod said:
Yada, yada, my PC the best. Thankfully, I am too busy actually playing games such as Rise of the Tomb Raider to be placing my nose 3 inches from my screen to try to notice the differences. Well, back to playing games, try not to enjoy them as you guys are already not doing.
Click to expand...

So, to clarify, if other people post, they're not enjoying games. When you post, you are.

Got it.
 
PhaseNoise said:
So, to clarify, if other people post, they're not enjoying games. When you post, you are.

Got it.
Click to expand...

Based on what the contents of the post or posts are, yes. Do not like it, sorry but, no here, this is the way I see it. My attitude of not having favorites is what helps......
 
bigdogchris said:
The Xbox One version is a little blurry. PS4 version looks pretty good. Obviously PC looks best.

Here's a good comparison of the consoles and PC

Click to expand...



Well basically Xbox One is a blurry mess, PS4 is less blurry and PC is sharp. Overall though not a huge difference between PC and PS4.
 
Mut1ny said:
Oh that's some crap. Why choose that game? There are plenty of games from 2009 that look better. Hell, Crysis is from 2007 and blows this away.
Click to expand...
I chose FEAR 2 because it did look pretty good for 2009.
Could you name a few that would look better than DOOM 2016 from 2009?

With all of the settings turned up, the textures and graphics, not to mention the distance those graphics can be seen at in-game are amazing.
I don't think I've seen a game from 2009 that looks better, and Crysis 1 still looks better than Crysis 2 and 3, which were both made years later, so that is kind of a mute point. ;)

Also, there is more to a game than looks.
DOOM 2016 is infinitely more fun than Crysis, at least in my opinion.
 
Red Falcon said:
I would suggest you go back and actually play a game from 2009, like FEAR 2: Project Origin, and compare the graphics.
Spoiler: they are night and day. ;)
Click to expand...
Crysis is anachronistic since it's SO much better than anything else for the next 5 years practically. As for some more realistic 2009 games, Stalker COP and Arma 2 both looked good for 2009:

Screenshot41927200KB.jpg

arma_2_screenshots_008.jpg
 
Consoles are already outdated the moment they hit the market since they have been in development for what, about 1-2 years? With 4K TVs already in the market when the boner and PS4 came out, I was extremely surprised they did not support 4k. For now at least the PCs can support better resolutions and better quality due to having more horsepower to push pretty textures. Even when consoles support 4k, we will always have the upper hand with better quality since we will always have access to better hardware on the spot. Now if consoles come out with upgradable hardware...

I have about 34 hours in with Doom, and I am loving it. :D

Ive heard the PC version has harder demons. Anyone confirmed that?
 
I thought consoles were incapable of playing any game at 4k and played most games at either 480 or 720 for fps reasons... Honestly it's been a good while since I owned a console, I just remember that being the case for a long time and thought it was still true.

But honestly, all things being equal, how can any console compete when it's connected to a TV when a PC has the advantage of an actual monitor?
 
KarsusTG said:
I thought consoles were incapable of playing any game at 4k and played most games at either 480 or 720 for fps reasons... Honestly it's been a good while since I owned a console, I just remember that being the case for a long time and thought it was still true.

But honestly, all things being equal, how can any console compete when it's connected to a TV when a PC has the advantage of an actual monitor?
Click to expand...
No, modern consoles will play games up to 1080p @ 60Hz, but some games will have to run at 720p @ 30Hz due to the game being too much for the console; really depends on the game.
What does having to be connected to an HDTV vs a monitor have to do with anything, considering they are both basically the same thing, and it is the resolution and fps that counts???
 
tetris42 said:
Crysis is anachronistic since it's SO much better than anything else for the next 5 years practically. As for some more realistic 2009 games, Stalker COP and Arma 2 both looked good for 2009:
Click to expand...

Those do look really nice, actually.
But those are also outdoors games, and the draw distance with those textures aren't nearly as great as DOOM 2016.

I'm not trying to be biased, but those games at their best, from what I remember, didn't use more than 1GB of VRAM at most.
I suppose for the small areas you are in in those games, they do look nice.
 
tetris42 said:
Crysis is anachronistic since it's SO much better than anything else for the next 5 years practically. As for some more realistic 2009 games, Stalker COP and Arma 2 both looked good for 2009:

Screenshot41927200KB.jpg

arma_2_screenshots_008.jpg
Click to expand...
Those do look decent enough, but lighting and soft particle effects have come a long way and add a lot to the look of the game. Compared to DOOM and other games released these days those two shots look flat in comparison. But ARMA does still do an amazing job with grass, trees and landscapes.
 
Ugh, just play the game on whatever makes you happiest. I know many PC gamers who will gladly play Doom on PS4 because that's where their friends are.
 
I play in 4k and to even think about comparing any game to a ps4 is just stupid. Doom has the best graphics I've seen in a LONG time. Uncharted 4 looks like a nice movie.
 
There a bunch of outdoor areas in Doom that look 2009 era, the indoors areas (and most of hell) are pretty much amazing all around. Most of it is poor texturing / low poly models for less important pieces of the landscape that are eyesores against everything else.
 
Uncharted 4 does look pretty good, especially for a console, but there certainly is better. Those textures look fairly low quality. Other effects don't look that special either. Water reflections look a bit less realistic than recent Assassin's Creed titles. It does look pretty good all things considered though.
 
EchtoGammut said:
I don't know man Uncharted 4 on a PC at 4K looks pretty epic, if you can't tell the difference you must be blind:
Click to expand...

Lol. Is that seriously the best there is on a console? The sheer lack of polygons and texture detail on the character models is astounding. Proof of this is in the character's movement and lack of resulting movement of objects attached to them. He's sprinting, pumping his arms, and yet his shirt nor the harness never move. The only games on PC that outclasses are badly done console ports. But those pre-rendered cutscenes with those amazingly realistic faces look fantastic...oh wait.

And LMAO at the texture clipping at 52 seconds. That leather harness seems to become infused with his armpit.
1:19 jeezus look at that aliasing on the tables and that radio. That round cooking pan on the ground...isn't round as you can clearly see angles where curves should be.
1:50 Is that truck only throwing up the same 4 chunks of mud in the same shape and the same exact directions?

Don't get me wrong, the game looks fantastic...for a console. They've done some very creative things with blurring to hide these things in the middle of action sequences to keep the frame rate up. Sitting 6 feet away from a TV you would never spot them. However, I simply picked 3 random sections of that video and can point out several flaws each time. That high detail everyone is raving about is only on slower scenes and not present when the action picks up.

In the end though, the issue is about the game, not the graphics. That's where the Uncharted series shines.

Anyone who says Uncharted 4 looks better than anything on the PC:
1. Is likely stoned when they play
2. Doesn't play the top PC games consistently on a high resolution monitor less than 3 feet from their face
3. Hasn't played any recent PC game with a video card that is mid-range or better.
4. Might need to get their eyes checked.
 
Last edited:
Armenius said:
Those do look decent enough, but lighting and soft particle effects have come a long way and add a lot to the look of the game. Compared to DOOM and other games released these days those two shots look flat in comparison. But ARMA does still do an amazing job with grass, trees and landscapes.
Click to expand...
I was just responding to the comment about how Doom v. 2009 games were night and day. I think we've been seeing small subtle improvements ever since then (and Crysis). Personally I think most modern games look great.
 
Red Falcon said:
No, modern consoles will play games up to 1080p @ 60Hz, but some games will have to run at 720p @ 30Hz due to the game being too much for the console; really depends on the game.
What does having to be connected to an HDTV vs a monitor have to do with anything, considering they are both basically the same thing, and it is the resolution and fps that counts???
Click to expand...
Education time people....

Gather round gather round....

Now watch this and please never post ignorance such as this again.... because people actually read your response and then repeat the ignorance you just spouted...and we are all dumber because of it.
 
Macblastr said:
Education time people....

Gather round gather round....

Now watch this and please never post ignorance such as this again.... because people actually read your response and then repeat the ignorance you just spouted...and we are all dumber because of it.
Click to expand...
I get the difference between higher-end monitors and HDTVs.
My point was, the base-technology is inherently the same in each device.

Also, even if a monitor is running at 120Hz, and a console is still outputting the video at 30Hz, it might help it look a bit smoother, but you are still getting 30Hz.
Your post had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.
 
Red Falcon said:
I get the difference between higher-end monitors and HDTVs.
My point was, the base-technology is inherently the same in each device.

Also, even if a monitor is running at 120Hz, and a console is still outputting the video at 30Hz, it might help it look a bit smoother, but you are still getting 30Hz.
Your post had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Click to expand...
Just to piggyback off this, a 120hz tv and a 120hz monitor are not the same because the TV does it in post and interpolates the frames, whereas the gpu does the 120hz rendering and displays it on the monitor. 120hz,240hz,600hz on tvs is all a gimmick and is not true high refresh rates.
 
nvgrim said:
Just to piggyback off this, a 120hz tv and a 120hz monitor are not the same because the TV does it in post and interpolates the frames, whereas the gpu does the 120hz rendering and displays it on the monitor. 120hz,240hz,600hz on tvs is all a gimmick and is not true high refresh rates.
Click to expand...
600 Hz was used with plasma televisions, and in that case it was technically correct. Otherwise you have to watch out for when the say "effective" refresh rate.
 
Is anyone managing 120FPS on 1080p? Mainly talking about the SP since MP is meant to be played at picmip 5
 
Armenius said:
600 Hz was used with plasma televisions, and in that case it was technically correct. Otherwise you have to watch out for when the say "effective" refresh rate.
Click to expand...
Yeah just thought id throw that in there even though its technically correct with the whole sub-field technology BS.
 
dgz said:
Is anyone managing 120FPS on 1080p? Mainly talking about the SP since MP is meant to be played at picmip 5
Click to expand...
at 2560x1440 maxed out im getting 90 fps constant (my refresh rate is set to 90 on my monitor) if i had a 120hz monitor im sure id get that too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top